2015-10-06 11:06 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at>: > > IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the > > German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there > (like > > the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with > > someone living there or operating his business there. > > I am ok with explicitely stating in the wiki that access=destination does > *not* require contact with residents. >
I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that destination does require contact). I'm not sure about the term "residents". Are these signs only found in areas which are "purely residential" (i.e. there are no offices if not inside residences and run by the resident, no shops, haircutters, agencies, ...)? Otherwise I'd include something referring to businesses. We should check if the currently described definition in the wiki for "destination" is correctly describing the situation for some place on Earth (some jurisdiction). If yes we have to leave it as it is IMHO, and we'd have to retag a lot of stuff in Germany. If not we could change the definition. > > > "visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also > "visitor" > > implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd say no. > > I don't know either. This is why I started this thread. What value do you > suggest? I'd use "destination" (with the changed definition). We do need maybe another value anyway for Austria, from what I read in WP there is a distinction between "Anrainer frei" (who has his residence there) and "Anrainerverkehr frei" (adds the people that want to come into contact with residents). Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
